Comments on: Reasons to Believe (that Creationists are Crazy)

By: WASP

WASP — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:49:42 +0000

Ross makes a perfectly reasonable argument. The problem isn’t that Ross takes an ancient manuscript and shares his attempts to qualify it publicly. The problem is the utter shamelessness with which evolutionists {e.g. those adhering to speciation [red and green algae into dinosaurs; whales into humans; etc...]) callously slam the door shut on their own peers, the many scientists and philosophers who find serious scientific and philosophical problems with the theory. Actively supporting institutional censureship in what is supposed to be a democratic independent media of opinions from some of the world’s leading scientists (as time goes on the list gets longer) in an effort to maintain a political strangehold on all serious inquiry of speciation theory is not scientific nor desirable to the scientific enterprise.

These evolutionists operate in the 21st century like the Roman Catholic Church did in medieval Europe. I believe if they had the power to conduct formal inquisitions upon the populace to force recantations of non-evolutionary scientific dissent they would take up that “cross” with exactly the same fervor. As it is they are limited to censuring, persecuting, and ruining the careers of your own peers who find a scientific basis to question speciation theory.

It’s maddening and unacceptable in a free modern society to see this situation but it exists because of people like the author of this article.

By: Joe Dowdly

Joe Dowdly — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 16:43:55 +0000

Hugh Ross is exactly right about what he said. The author of this article has refuted 0% of Ross’s assertions. This article is just blather couched in a personal attack.

By: Sean Carroll’s Handy Grid - Science and Religion Today

Sean Carroll’s Handy Grid - Science and Religion Today — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 15:39:47 +0000

[...] the world of discourse; sometimes we want to engage with crackpots just to make fun of them, or to boggle at their wrongness. But for me, that should be a small component of one’s overall rhetorical portfolio. If you want [...]

By: The Grid of Disputation | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

The Grid of Disputation | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 21:06:03 +0000

By: Gordon McCabe

Gordon McCabe — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:27:40 +0000

British journalist Bryan Appleyard has written an article on Darwinian evolution for The Sunday Times which is straight out of the creationist textbook:

http://mccabism.blogspot.com/2009/01/bryan-appleyard-and-creationism.html

The article quotes appovingly from creationists, and reprises the familiar creationist arguments that evolution cannot explain the eye, that there aren’t enough genes to explain human complexity, and evolution caused Nazi eugenics and other social ills.

By: Kevembuangga

Kevembuangga — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 13:20:50 +0000

Sean Baines How about if he is right. Sure, How about if the moon is made of green cheese? For more see Secular Right.

By: Sean Baines

Sean Baines — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 20:40:08 +0000

Wow this Hugh Ross has you really rattled. Not bad going for what you call a cracpot.
How about if he is right.
JB

By: scottb

scottb — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 06:16:51 +0000

Vera wrote: blah, blah, blah… misuse of fallacies… blah, blah… Your post is as biased as mine is.

You mean that bias against crackpot ideas is a bad thing?

By: Vera

Vera — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:22:37 +0000

Most of what is contained in this post is nothing but logical fallacy – appeal to ridicule, ad hominem, and poisoning the well. After that, you left out about 98 more parameters for their to be viable life on this earth. I noticed you aren’t threatened by other speakers but what a knee jerk reaction to Hugh Ross! Why is that? Why do you feel the need to attack him personally and call him a crackpot? I think you know why.

Your post is as biased as mine is.

Vera

By: Interested

Interested — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:44:19 +0000

Kevembuangga Says: Show me some other and I will “believe”.

I cannot show, but I can tell you the way they went about it to ’see it’. Last time, we engaged on this, I suggested you take 10 days to attend a free meditation course. That will be the tip of the ice berg to the viewing. It is said the likes of the historical Gautama Buddha saw it through such approach. I have not walked the full path so I have to go with the “three strikes IF” but I would support the preservation of such ancient pathway for humanity. By the way it has nothing to do with miracles. It is direct perception of reality, versus conventional reality (realities of the world. Seeing is by the analytical mind, OR the intuitive mind. Discursive thought is use of the former and meditation is use of the latter. To use the latter, one has to for that period temporarily cease use of the analytical mind. I cannot show you that which only your intuitive mind can see for itself (subject to your three strikes IF disclaimer) when in use by yourself.

me: “I just found out this year and last year there are some particles that pop out and are seen and then disappear and are not seen.”

you: :”Yeah, yeah, I had that happening to me too when I was drunk…”

me: That actually was a science observation, if you care to check it out seriously. I have not used the science words as I have forgotten them.